Department for Transport

European Union

Lord Boswell of Aynho: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union to the Department for Transport and its associated agencies, broken down by (1) staff time, (2) printing costs, (3) running of engagement events, (4) witness expenses, (5) publicity of the reports, and (6) any and all other associated costs.

Baroness Kramer: The Balance of Competences Review concluded in December 2014. It was the most comprehensive analysis of the UK’s relationship with the EU ever undertaken. The Review involved a large number of Departments across Whitehall to produce the 32 reports. The Review was based on the evidence and views received through widespread consultation with interested parties from across society. Across the whole review, departments received close to 2,300 evidence submissions. Departments held over 250 events, attended by around 2,100 stakeholders. It was important that what is an unprecedented examination of EU membership was done with appropriate time and care. But the government is also very conscious of the need to ensure value for money in everything that it does. The cost to the Department for Transport (DfT) of the Balance of Competences (BOC) review is made up as follows: (1) staff time Work on the Review was allocated according to need to existing staff within the Department. Providing a full breakdown of staff time and costs would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold. DfT staff began work on the Review in October 2012 and continued until publication of the DfT BOC Transport report in February 2014. (2) printing costs DfT paid £3,123 for printing and publication of the Balance of Competences Transport report. (3) running of engagement events Engagement events to gather stakeholder views were held in-house in DfT and used internal meeting rooms, apart from one event which was held in Brussels. Costs were made up of staff time of those from DfT attending and facilitating these meetings. The 2 days of meetings in Brussels involved 2 DfT staff (at SCS1 and G7) and cost approximately £760. (4) witness expenses Across the whole of the Balance of Competences Review witness expenses amounted to approximately £2,255. (5) publicity of the reports Publicity for the Balance of Competences reports was conducted centrally by Cabinet Office. DfT undertook no separate report-specific publicity. (6) any and all other associated costs Nil.

Roads: Accidents

Baroness Smith of Basildon: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people have been killed or seriously injured in road traffic incidents in Essex in each year since 2010.

Baroness Kramer: The number of reported casualties by severity for each year since 2010 is given in table below: Number of reported casualties in Essex : 2010 -2013 Number of casualtiesLocal Authority (Highway)  2010201120122013   Southend-on-Sea (Unitary Authority) Killed4222  Serious61635955  Slight480466432438  Total545531493495   Thurrock (Unitary Authority) Killed3453  Serious67606657  Slight490516518436  Total560580589496   Essex (excl. Unitary Authorities) Killed45353834  Serious617595564538  Slight3,4403,6413,5613,428  Total4,1024,2714,1634,000

Large Goods Vehicle Drivers: Foreign Nationals

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what guidance is given to overseas truck drivers regarding United Kingdom road traffic regulations.

Baroness Kramer: The Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency produces extensive guidance to help heavy goods vehicle drivers and operators meet their obligations, including the Highway Code and guidance on drivers’ hours and load security, for example. This is published on GOV.UK. It is however, the responsibility of the individual driver and employer to ensure that they are aware of the specific road traffic requirements in each Member State. The driving test is delivered in accordance with EU requirements and all truck drivers have to undertake an EU prescribed initial qualification to gain a driver CPC and undertake mandatory periodic training to maintain it. One of the requirements of the CPC is that the driver is aware of the regulations relating to the carriage of goods, many of which are uniform across the EU such as drivers’ hours, use of tachographs, seatbelts, operator licensing and relevant papers relating to types of goods carried. Information for specific road traffic signs can be found on GOV.UK

Large Goods Vehicles: Road Traffic Offences

Lord Roberts of Llandudno: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many lorries registered overseas have been found to be (1) overloaded, (2) in an unsatisfactory mechanical condition, and (3) driven in breach of driver hours regulations, within the last 12 months.

Baroness Kramer: The information requested is in the table below:OverloadingWeighed2,308Prohibited1,415Mechanical ProhibitionsInspected32,344Prohibited10,586Drivers HoursExamined41,732Prohibited6,708 On any given check it is often the case that the same vehicle is checked by a Vehicle Examiner and a Traffic Examiner and will be counted against both disciplines. Some vehicles/operators are targeted by only one discipline, for example: an older vehicle might be targeted for its condition but not to check on the driver.

Driving Offences: Speed Limits

Baroness Pinnock: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have carried out any research into the effect of excessive traffic speed in 30mph areas on the quality of life of residents in those areas.

Baroness Kramer: The Government has not carried out any specific research into the effect of excessive speed in 30mph areas on the quality of life of residents. Local authorities have the power to set local speed limits, and implement physical road changes to suit local conditions. The Department for Transport has provided advice to highway authorities in the Speed Limit Circular 01/2013 – Setting Local Speed Limits. However, the Department has commissioned research into the effectiveness of 20mph limits. The study will cover many aspects including effects on speed, collisions, casualties and modal shift. The research will also consider best practice, road users’ perceptions and effects on the quality of the environment. This is a three year study reporting in 2017.

Driving Offences: Speed Limits

Baroness Pinnock: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they intend to give the responsibility for traffic speed enforcement on roads with a 30mph limit to local authorities.

Baroness Kramer: Her Majesty’s Government does not plan to give responsibility for traffic speed enforcement to the local authorities. These decisions on where to apply speed limits are taken by local authorities in conjunction with the police force for the area in question, whose role it is to properly enforce these.

Railways: Tickets

Lord Bradshaw: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take following the recent report of Passenger Focus, "Ticket to Ride", about policies concerning passengers travelling without a valid ticket.

Baroness Kramer: To coincide with the publication of Passenger Focus’s report, ‘Ticket to Ride – an Update’, the Government commenced a consultation on 3 February 2015 on changes to the process for administering penalty fares appeals. The consultation closes on 27 April 2015. A copy of the consultation document is attached.



Penalty fares Consultation
(PDF Document, 164.63 KB)

Low Emission Zones

Lord Bradshaw: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to define national standards for the creation of Low Emission Zones so that in future most vehicles are able to enter such zones.

Baroness Kramer: Low Emission Zones (LEZs) are one of a number of measures that can help improve air quality, particularly in urban areas. Introducing LEZs is a decision for local authorities. Government has already provided guidance to local authorities on the design of LEZs, such as which vehicles should be covered and what emissions standards they should meet. The Department for Environment and Rural Affairs is currently working with a small number of local authorities who are examining the value of introducing such schemes. Government is revising its air quality plans in relation to compliance with EU air quality standards. As part of this we are reviewing all feasible measures including the role of a national framework for LEZs. We will be consulting on revised air quality plans later in the year.

Railways: Suicide

Lord Bradshaw: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Kramer on 9 February (HL4678), whether the rise in suicides on the railway has been analysed by area, age group, sex and ethnicity of those who died.

Baroness Kramer: Details of suicides by area (route), age group and sex are recorded by the rail industry but not ethnicity. The relevant information is held by RSSB (formerly the Rail Safety & Standards Board) and is analysed to provide evidence to support the development and implementation of the industry’s suicide reduction programme.

Rolling Stock: Procurement

Lord Bradshaw: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Kramer on 10 February (HL4677), in the light of the change in franchisee and the expectation of more changes, what steps they are taking to ensure that there are sufficient luggage space and catering facilities for the anticipated use of those trains.

Baroness Kramer: The interior of the Intercity Express Programme is designed flexibly so that it can be adapted to meet different traffic conditions in the future. Operators have been fully engaged in this process. We continue to work very closely with them on the train, including catering provision.

Roads: Safety

Lord Bradshaw: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether road safety targets are at present set for local authorities; and, if not, whether they have considered reinstating them.

Baroness Kramer: The Government has not set road safety targets for local authorities, and is not considering reinstating them. However, local authorities are free to set their own targets if they find this useful. The fact that the Government has not set a target does not mean that it does not consider road safety to be a high priority. The strategic framework includes forecasts of the casualty numbers that we might expect to see through to 2030 from the measures implemented by Government, and the actions of local authorities. While we believe that previous road safety targets have been useful we do not consider that over-arching national targets are necessary for road safety in Great Britain. This is because we do not believe that further persuasion is needed on the importance of road safety. We expect central and local government to continue to prioritise road safety and continue to seek improvements.

Large Goods Vehicles: Licensing

Lord Bradshaw: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much revenue is raised through the O licences of goods vehicles.

Baroness Kramer: The revenue that has been raised by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency is £8.2m for the 10 months ending 31 January 2015 (£9.9m for the full year in 2014) from Operator Licences of Goods Vehicles.

Large Goods Vehicles: Licensing

Lord Bradshaw: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much of the revenue raised through the O licences of good vehicles is spent by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency on enforcement activity.

Baroness Kramer: None of the revenue raised through the Operator licences of goods vehicles is spent on enforcement activity by the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency.

Home Office

European Union

Lord Boswell of Aynho: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union to the Home Office and its associated agencies, broken down by (1) staff time, (2) printing costs, (3) running of engagement events, (4) witness expenses, (5) publicity of the reports, and (6) any and all other associated costs.

Lord Bates: As you will be aware, the Balance of Competences Review concluded in December. It was the most comprehensive analysis of the UK’s relationship with the EU ever undertaken. The Review involved a large number of Departments across Whitehall to produce the 32 reports. The Review was based on the evidence and views received through widespread consultation with interested parties from across society. Across the whole review, Departments received close to 2,300 evidence submissions. Departments held over 250 events, attended by around 2,100 stakeholders. It was important that what is an unprecedented examination of EU membership was done with appropriate time and care. But the Government is also very conscious of the need to ensure value for money in everything that it does.The Home Office participated in three reports as part of the Balance of Competences review: Asylum and non-EU Migration; Free movement of persons (jointly with DWP); and Police and Criminal Justice (jointly with the Ministry of Justice). Work on the Reviews was allocated, according to need, to existing staff within the Department. Providing a full breakdown of staff time and costs would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold. The total cost to the Home Office for printing and publication of the Asylum and non-EU Migration, Free Movement of Persons, and Police and Criminal Justice reports was £8088.08. The Home Office hosted or jointly hosted a total of a number of engagement events for the three reports, including events in Edinburgh and Brussels. We estimate that the total cost incurred by the Home Office for all of these events was £2200. Across the whole of the Balance of Competences Review witness expenses amounted to approximately £2,255.00.The Home Office did not incur any other associated costs as part of the Balance of Competence Review.

Road Traffic Offences

Baroness Smith of Basildon: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people have been stopped by the police resulting in action being taken for road traffic offences in each year since 2010.

Lord Bates: Data on the number of people stopped by police for road traffic offences is not collected centrally.

Illegal Immigrants: Northern Ireland

Lord Browne of Belmont: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people have been apprehended when illegally entering the United Kingdom in Northern Ireland at the border with the Republic of Ireland in each of the last three years.

Lord Bates: I refer the noble Lord to the answer of 26th January 2015, to Question 221443 given by my hon. Friend the Immigration and Security Minister James Brokenshire.

Mediterranean Sea

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the ability of Operation Triton to save the lives of those at risk in the Mediterranean; and what proposals they will make to assist Spain, Italy and Greece in dealing with the flow of migrants and refugees.

Lord Bates: The EU's external border agency, Frontex, has stated that since the launch of Operation Triton in November 2014 they helped to save 6,000 migrants on their way to Italy. The UK has responded positively to requests from Frontex to deploy two debriefers and a nationality expert to support Operation Triton, with further support committed for 2015. We have made clear that we are willing to consider any further requests from Frontex for UK support.The recent deaths are a tragic reminder of the great risks to migrants attempting to reach Europe by crossing the Mediterranean in unseaworthy and ill-equipped vessels. During Italy's Mare Nostrum operation in 2014 many thousands of migrants were intercepted and brought to Italy, but over 3,000 died at sea. While EU Ministers have previously agreed that the principal responsibility for migrants and refugees rests with the Member State whose territory they arrive in, the Government continues to provide concrete support to those Member States under particular pressure both through the EU agencies and directly. We are also investing in joint EU efforts to mitigate pressures on these Member States through work in key countries of origin and transit, including efforts to tackle the root causes of these dangerous journeys and the organised criminal gangs behind them, and to increase support for protection for refugees in North and East Africa and in the Middle East.In particular we are we are playing a leading role in the new ‘Khartoum Process’ launched at a Ministerial Conference in Rome on 28 November, aimed at combating people smuggling and human trafficking in the Horn of Africa. We are also supporting the EU's Middle East Regional Development and Protection Programme, which is seeking sustainable regional solutions for those fleeing the Syrian crisis, as well as providing over £700 Million in UK humanitarian aid.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office

Ukraine

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have any plans to provide arms to government forces in Ukraine; and whether NATO intends to do so.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The British Government’s policy since the start of the crisis has been to supply non-lethal assistance to Ukrainian armed forces, in line with the Government’s assessment that there must be a political solution to this crisis. The Government is providing a substantial package of non-lethal equipment to Ukraine comprising medical kits, winter clothing and equipment, body armour, helmets and fuel. The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) as an institution does not own any combat capabilities and is therefore not capable of providing arms to Ukraine. It is a national decision for each country in the NATO alliance to decide whether to supply lethal aid to Ukraine. The UK is not planning to do so, but as the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond), said in the House of Commons on Tuesday 10 February “we will reserve the right to keep under review the question of supplying lethal aid”.

Libya

The Marquess of Lothian: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their assessment of the progress made towards democracy in Libya as a result of the United Kingdom's military involvement in 2011.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The decision to intervene in Libya in 2011 was an international one, taken by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) and other international partners following a call from the Arab League and authorisation at the UN Security Council. The UK’s military actions in Libya saved lives, and were consistent with our obligations under international law. Libya faces many challenges after four decades of misrule. The UK, together with our international partners, remains committed to supporting the people of Libya. The UK’s immediate priority is to support United Nations’ mediation efforts towards a ceasefire and a stable political settlement in Libya. The UK Special Envoy to the Libyan Political Transition, Jonathan Powell, is working to support United Nations-led efforts to mediate between key political and military leaders. Some encouraging progress has been made during the current UN talks which began in Geneva in January 2015. The UK has called on all Libyan parties to engage constructively in the UN-led dialogue in order to reach a sustainable ceasefire and a national unity government.

Ukraine

Lord Hylton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the use by combatants in Ukraine of internationally prohibited weapons, for example anti-personnel mines, cluster weapons, flechettes or dum-dum bullets.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: We are concerned by reports regarding the use of cluster munitions in Ukraine. The National Security and Defence Council of Ukraine stated on 21 October and 3 December 2014 that the Ukrainian Army has not used cluster munitions. Cluster munitions should in no circumstances be used intentionally to target civilians, and all parties to the conflict must act in accordance with international humanitarian law. Neither Ukraine nor the Russian Federation are yet States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, and we call on both states to accede to that Convention. We are also aware of reports of the use of anti-personnel mines on Ukrainian territory, including the Crimean Peninsula. At present, it is not possible to conclude with certainty whether any parties to the conflict have used anti-personnel mines, nor which parties were responsible for such use if it has occurred. We continue, however, to monitor the situation on the ground. Ukraine is a State Party to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention and we encourage them to adhere to their obligations under the Convention. The Russian Federation is not a State Party to that convention, and we encourage it to accede. We are not aware of flechettes or expanding bullets having been used by any parties to the conflict in Ukraine. We are clear that all parties to the conflict in Ukraine should act in accordance with international humanitarian law, including the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution.

North Korea

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of reports that the government of North Korea uses forced and uncompensated labour, including school children, in the construction of tourist sites visited by United Kingdom tourists; and whether United Kingdom legislation prohibits the use of such sites by United Kingdom-based businesses or individuals.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: We are aware of reports regarding the use of conscripted military personnel in the construction of sites that foreigners visit in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) and of the use of forced and uncompensated labour for construction projects more generally. Our Embassy in Pyongyang has seen activity corroborating these reports, such as military personnel working on the new Pyongyang airport terminal and Masik Pass Ski Resort, and we are aware of situations in which university students have been taken out of classes to participate in construction projects. We are unaware of specific reports regarding the use of school children in the construction of tourist sites, and we have not witnessed this in Pyongyang. Our officials have seen children, who appear to be of school age, taking part in extracurricular activities including street cleaning and grass cutting, and also being used as agricultural labour at harvest time. There is no legislation prohibiting the use of, or access to, DPRK tourist sites by UK-based business or individuals.

North Korea

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of comments by United Nations Special Rapporteur Marzuki Darusman that the human rights situation in North Korea can only improve if the Kim family is removed and a new leadership is installed.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns: We continue to be extremely concerned by reports of gross violations of human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). We have repeatedly urged the DPRK authorities to address these violations, including by immediately closing political prison camps. We have also made clear that we will respond positively if the regime demonstrates a genuine willingness to deliver improvements on the ground. However, until and unless such improvements take place we will continue to work with partners to maintain international pressure on the DPRK. We support the work of the Special Rapporteur in monitoring the human rights situation in the DPRK and briefing the UN Human Rights Council as an important part of these efforts.

Northern Ireland Office

Terrorism: Northern Ireland

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they know that the information supplied to Sinn Fein concerns the correct person if the addresses of the "on the runs" are not known to the Northern Ireland Office.

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Northern Ireland officials who operated the "on the runs" scheme asked Sinn Fein for up-to-date addresses of the "on the runs"; and if not, why not.

Baroness Randerson: The standard of research required by officers of the Police Service of Northern Ireland to confirm the identity of those considered under the ‘on-the runs’ administrative scheme is set out at Appendix 7 of the Hallett Report. Where the PSNI were unable to identify an individual from the information provided by Sinn Féin, further information was requested. Paragraphs 4.90 and 4.121 of the Hallett Report provide examples of when further information to confirm identity was sought from, and provided by, Sinn Féin.The Government have accepted Lady Justice Hallett’s conclusion, at Paragraph 10.25 of her report, that “there were difficulties with the collation and reconciliation of data, at least in part, because of the limited information provided by Sinn Féin. In some cases there was confusion over names and occasionally with dates of birth. The system of record-keeping was not fit for purpose given those difficulties and the importance of letters being provided. As a result of these difficulties there were repeated attempts to reconcile the figures over the years, which to a very large extent resolved the difficulties but not entirely.”

Terrorism: Northern Ireland

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the "on the runs" scheme applied only to those to whom Sinn Fein wanted it to apply; and why it was not applied to those not linked to Sinn Fein.

Baroness Randerson: At paragraph 9.15 of her report, Lady Justice Hallett finds that had a body other than Sinn Féin (and the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland Prison Service) put forward a name, there was no policy to exclude any particular group of individuals. Paragraphs 4.59 and 4.60 outline correspondence between the Northern Ireland Office and Social Democratic and Labour Party MLA Alex Attwood which indicates that had a name and date of birth been submitted to the Northern Ireland Office, that individual would have been considered. Paragraph 4.8 states the then Government anticipated similar applications from Loyalists. Lady Justice Hallett concluded there were no express or implied criteria in the scheme to exclude any particular category of individual.

Northern Ireland Government

Lord Hay of Ballyore: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to work with the political parties in Northern Ireland on the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement.

Baroness Randerson: The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is in regular contact with the Northern Ireland parties to work with them in implementing the Stormont House Agreement, in addition to the quarterly Implementation Review Group meetings. The Government has also introduced legislation for the devolution of Corporation Tax powers to Northern Ireland which is currently progressing through the other place.

Government Departments: Staff

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many officials work in each section of the Northern Ireland Office.

Baroness Randerson: The number of staff working in each business group of the Northern Ireland Office in January 2015, the latest period for which figures are available, is shown below: Business GroupNumber of StaffSenior Management6Business Delivery40Security and Protection31Legacy23Community Engagement15Economic Constitutional and Political19

Human Rights: Republic of Ireland

Lord Laird: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Randerson on 10 February (HL4487), concerning the state of human rights in the Republic of Ireland, what steps they have taken to ascertain that the government of the Republic of Ireland is and has been carrying out those sections of the Belfast Agreement to which it agreed in 1998.

Baroness Randerson: I have nothing to add to my previous answer of 10 February to the Noble Lord.

Department for Education

Autism: Special Educational Needs

Lord Storey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the increase in the instances of parents of autistic children taking legal action against their local authorities claiming that their special educational needs are not being met.

Lord Nash: The Department for Education does not collect data on private legal action taken by parents against local authorities. The number of autism-related appeals which were registered with the First-tier Tribunal (Special Educational Needs and Disability) increased from 1,231 to 1,633 in the 2013/14 academic year. The number of autism-related cases heard and decided by the tribunal has however remained relatively stable. In 2013/14 there were 300 such cases compared to 278; 255 and 300 in the previous three years from 2010/11. These figures are available at: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/tribunals-and-gender-recognition-certificate-statistics-quarterly-july-to-september-2014 . The recent reforms to the special educational needs and disability system were introduced after the time period to which these figures refer, and the number of appeals to the tribunal is expected to drop as agreement with families is increasingly reached earlier in the process for education, health and care needs assessments and plans. Children with autism will also benefit from the training in autism which is being offered to education providers through the Autism Education Trust which is funded by the Department for Education. Nearly 50,000 staff have received autism training since the spring of 2012.

Schools: Transport

Lord Storey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made in the last six months of Sustainable Mode of Travel to School strategies; how well they consider that they are being implemented; and when they last reviewed them.

Lord Nash: The duty to promote the use of sustainable modes of travel to school and to develop a strategy for sustainable local travel is a statutory duty for the local authority (LA). LAs are best placed to address the needs of children and young people in their area and local walking, cycling and bus strategies should inform their approach. The Department for Education does not monitor or review these plans. Guidance issued by the Department advises LAs of their duties and makes it clear that it is for the LA to monitor the implementation of their strategies and revise these as they feel necessary. LAs are also required to publish their Sustainable Modes of Travel Strategy on their website by 31 August each year. The guidance issued by the Department is published online at: www.gov.uk/government/publications/home-to-school-travel-and-transport-guidance

Ministry of Justice

European Union

Lord Boswell of Aynho: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union to the Ministry of Justice and its associated agencies, broken down by (1) staff time, (2) printing costs, (3) running of engagement events, (4) witness expenses, (5) publicity of the reports, and (6) any and all other associated costs.

Lord Faulks: As you will be aware, the Balance of Competences Review concluded in December. It was the most comprehensive analysis of the UK’s relationship with the EU ever undertaken. The Review involved a large number of Departments across Whitehall to produce the 32 reports. The Review was based on the evidence and views received through widespread consultation with interested parties from across society. It was important that what is an unprecedented examination of EU membership was done with appropriate time and care. But the government is also very conscious of the need to ensure value for money in everything that it does. The Ministry of Justice produced four reports as part of the Balance of Competences review: Fundamental Rights; Information Rights; Civil Judicial Cooperation (including family matters); and Police and Criminal Justice (jointly with the Home Office). Work on the Review was allocated according to need to existing staff within the Department. Providing a full breakdown of staff time and costs would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold. The total cost to the Ministry of Justice for printing and publication of the four reports was £10,210.39. The printing and publication costs for the Police and Criminal Justice report were split equally with the Home Office. The Ministry of Justice hosted, or jointly hosted, 19 engagement events for the four reports, including events in London, Edinburgh, Belfast and Brussels. We estimate that the total cost incurred by the Ministry of Justice for all of these events was £7,140. Across the whole of the Balance of Competences Review witness expenses amounted to approximately £2,255.00. The Ministry of Justice did not incur any costs in publicising the reports, or any other associated costs as part of the Balance of Competence Review.

Driving Offences: Mobile Phones

Baroness Smith of Basildon: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many people have been prosecuted or cautioned for using a mobile phone whilst driving in each year since 2010.

Lord Faulks: Driving offences can have very serious consequences for victims and their families. Using a mobile phone while driving is dangerous and irresponsible. That is why in 2013 we increased the fixed penalty notice for this offence from £60 to £100 and we are now looking at the effectiveness of the penalty. We will continue to tackle the minority of drivers who pose a danger to other road users. The number of offenders cautioned and defendants proceeded against at magistrates’ courts for offences related to using mobile phones while driving in England and Wales from 2009 to 2013 can be viewed in the table. No cautions have been issued for any summary motoring offence as police practice is to use Fixed Penalty Notices instead.Offenders cautioned and defendants proceeded against at magistrates courts for offences related to driving while using a mobile phone (1), England and Wales, 2009 to 2013 (2)(3)   20092010201120122013  Cautioned-----  Proceeded against32,57135,25531,39024,41419,650  '-' = Nil   (1) Offences under RR 110 (1) - 110 (3) of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986  (2) The figures given in the table relate to persons for whom these offences were the principal offences for which they were dealt with. When a defendant has been found guilty of or been cautrioned for two or more offences it is the offence for which the heaviest penalty is imposed. Where the same disposal is imposed for two or more offences, the offence selected is the offence for which the statutory maximum penalty is the most severe.  (3) Every effort is made to ensure that the figures presented are accurate and complete. However, it is important to note that these data have been extracted from large administrative data systems generated by the courts and police forces. As a consequence, care should be taken to ensure data collection processes and their inevitable limitations are taken into account when those data are used.  Source: Justice Statistics Analytical Services - Ministry of Justice. Ref: PQ HL 4900  Cautions and court proceedings data for 2014 are planned for publication in May 2015.

Ministry of Defence

Iraq

The Marquess of Lothian: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many United Kingdom military air sorties were carried out in Iraq over the last two years in January; and how many of those resulted in the firing of weapons or dropping of bombs.

Lord Astor of Hever: The UK has deployed two types of armed aircraft in the operation against ISIL; the Tornado GR4 and the Reaper, Remotely Piloted Air System. As at 31 January 2015, these aircraft have flown 374 missions and released 206 weapons against ISIL targets in Iraq.

Syria

The Marquess of Lothian: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether in the last month there have been any United Kingdom military air sorties against targets in Syria or any which have involved incursions into or overflying of Syrian airspace.

Lord Astor of Hever: The only UK air asset operating in Syria is the Reaper, Remotely Piloted Air System. In the month of January 2015 this aircraft conducted eight surveillance missions in Syria. No UK Reaper have discharged weapons in Syrian airspace.

Afghanistan

The Marquess of Lothian: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what continuing military assistance they are providing in Afghanistan; in what form; and where.

Lord Astor of Hever: The UK is providing around 470 non-combat troops to the NATO Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan. Our contribution is focused principally on mentoring at the Afghan National Army Officer Academy near Kabul and providing continuing advisory support to the Afghan security Ministries.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Common Agricultural Policy

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the comments by the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Agriculture, Liz Truss MP, in the Daily Telegraph on 1 February, about the European Union Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and its impact on farmers in the United Kingdom, whether they intend to seek reform of the CAP or to propose United Kingdom withdrawal from it if a negotiated reform is not possible.

Lord De Mauley: The Government’s priorities are to reform the European Union so that it is more flexible, competitive and democratically accountable.   Reform negotiations of the CAP happen every seven years. Through successive negotiations the Government has made progress in achieving reform but work needs to continue to deliver a more competitive and market-orientated CAP. The Government will be fully involved in the next round of CAP reform negotiations which will be implemented throughout the EU after 2020.   The Government is focused on the implementation of the most recent CAP reform. The Secretary of State has made clear to the EU Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development, the UK’s immediate priorities for simplification, most notably on the Greening measures. The Commissioner’s commitment to reduce red tape and administrative burden is welcome. UK Ministers are working with the European Commission and other Member States to secure the most ambitious action on CAP and its simplification. My officials have engaged with stakeholders across the UK on this agenda, and their views will be incorporated into the Secretary of State’s response to Commissioner Hogan’s request for input this week.

Agriculture: Subsidies

Baroness Byford: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, following the implementation of the new Common Agricultural Policy information technology system, farmers who are prevented from completing their applications for payments by 15 May will be subject to penalties for late submission.

Lord De Mauley: Under article 13 of EU regulation 809/2014, Member States must require claims to be made by no later than 15 May, and this is the deadline adopted in the UK. Late claims submitted within the next 25 days are subject to a penalty of 1% of the claim for each working day’s delay. Claims already submitted by 15 May can be adjusted after that in some circumstances. We expect that the Rural Payments system, and our provision of support to those who may face any difficulty in applying online, will ensure that all farmers have every opportunity to claim their direct payments by 15 May. There are force majeure provisions for those that fail to submit on time which can apply in limited circumstances.   The Secretary of State is also seeking to make such penalties more proportionate in future.

Hunting

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they support the decision of the United Nations Human Rights Committee that a ban on subsistence hunting, where hunting is an "essential element in the culture of the community", violates Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Lord De Mauley: The UK Government is fully committed to promoting and protecting human rights for all individuals, including indigenous people, without discrimination on any grounds. We continue to work overseas and through multilateral institutions to improve the situation of indigenous people internationally, and have long provided political and financial support to the economic, social and political development of indigenous peoples around the world.   We regard the General Comments and Decisions of the United Nations Human Rights Committee as valuable guidance for all State Parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). We do not, however, consider that they are legally binding and have therefore made no assessment of whether a ban on subsistence hunting breaches Section 27 of the ICCPR.

Department for Communities and Local Government

Travellers: Caravan Sites

Lord Avebury: To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Homes and Communities Agency decided to exclude bids for Traveller sites within the Green Belt from consideration under their affordable homes programme for 2015–18, while including bids for housing; and what assessment they made of the implications of human rights and equality law in reaching that decision.

Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon: The Homes and Communities Agency’s prospectus for our affordable housing programme makes clear that “we do not expect to receive bids for schemes on Green Belt land or other land with special environmental protections”, and this applies across all forms of accommodation, not just traveller sites.The Government has a planning policy which seeks to safeguard Green Belt protection; consequently, we have intentionally aligned our housing policy to ensure it is consistent.The Homes and Communities Agency fully considers its obligations under equality and human rights law.We believe that planning rules should be applied fairly and consistently. The perception that certain groups are given ‘special treatment’ in the planning system creates community tensions, harming the cause of equality.

HM Treasury

EU Budget: Contributions

Lord Stevens of Ludgate: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Deighton on 2 February (HL4233), whether using the British rebate to offset some of the £1.7 billion bill from the European Union will affect the amount of the further rebate available for other purposes; and if so, by how much.

Lord Deighton: The additional rebate which the UK will receive will not affect future rebate calculations in any way.

Employee Ownership

Lord Stevenson of Balmacara: To ask Her Majesty’s Government how many British companies have agreed share valuation with HM Revenue and Customs in connection with the award of shares to employees under Employee Shareholder Status; and how many of those have also registered with HM Revenue and Customs a Share Incentive Plan or a Save as You Earn share scheme.

Lord Deighton: HM Revenue and Customs have agreed more than 350 share valuations with British companies in connection with the employee shareholder status. HMRC is not aware that any Share Incentive Plan or Save as You Earn option scheme is being operated by any of those companies.

European Union

Baroness Prashar: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union to HM Treasury and its associated agencies, broken down by (1) staff time, (2) printing costs, (3) running of engagement events, (4) witness expenses, (5) publicity of the reports, and (6) any and all other associated costs.

Lord Deighton: As you will be aware, the Balance of Competences Review concluded in December. It was the most comprehensive analysis of the UK’s relationship with the EU ever undertaken. The Review involved a large number of Departments across Whitehall to produce the 32 reports. The Review was based on the evidence and views received through widespread consultation with interested parties from across society. Across the whole review, departments received close to 2,300 evidence submissions. Departments held over 250 events, attended by around 2,100 stakeholders.   It was important that what is an unprecedented examination of EU membership was done with appropriate time and care. But the government is also very conscious of the need to ensure value for money in everything that it does. HMT produced four reports for the Balance of Competences Review: Taxation (semester 1), Financial Services and Free Movement of Capital, and EU Budget (semester 3), and Economic and Monetary Policy (semester 4).   Costs   Staff time Work on the Review was allocated according to need to existing staff within the Department. Providing a full breakdown of staff time and costs would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold. Printing costs Her Majesty’s Treasury paid £16,776.27 for printing and publication of all four Balance of Competency reports. Running of engagement events A number of engagement events were conducted, as set out in the annexes of each report or internally at no cost to the Treasury. A total of £400 was incurred for one event for the Balance of Competences report on Economic and Monetary Policy. Witness expenses Across the whole of the Balance of Competences Review witness expenses amounted to approximately £2,255.00.Publicity of the reports No expenses were incurred for publicity. Any and all other associated costs For the Balance of Competences Report on Financial Services and Free Movement of Capital, a cost of £8,000 was incurred in production of a literature review from an external academic. This was required to supplement the evidence on the free movement of capital and to allow for a separate, more in-depth analysis. The literature review was published alongside the report as evidence.

European Union

Baroness Prashar: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union to HM Revenue and Customs and its associated agencies, broken down by (1) staff time, (2) printing costs, (3) running of engagement events, (4) witness expenses, (5) publicity of the reports, and (6) any and all other associated costs.

Lord Deighton: As you will be aware, the Balance of Competences Review concluded in December. It was the most comprehensive analysis of the UK’s relationship with EU ever undertaken. The Review involved a large number of Departments across Whitehall to produce the 32 reports. The Review was based on the evidence and views received through widespread consultation with interested parties from across society. Across the whole review, departments received close to 2,300 evidence submissions. Departments held over 250 events, attended by around 2,100 stakeholders. It was important that what is an unprecedented examination of EU membership was done with appropriate time and care. But the government is also very conscious of the need to ensure value for money in everything that it does. HMT produced four reports for the Balance of Competences Review: Taxation (semester 1), Financial Services and Free Movement of Capital, and EU Budget (semester 3), and Economic and Monetary Policy (Semester 4). Costs Staff TimeWork on the Review was allocated according to need to existing staff within the Department. Providing a full breakdown of staff time and costs would exceed the disproportionate cost threshold. Printing costsHer Majesty’s Treasury paid £16,776.27 for printing and publication of all four Balance of Competency reports. Running of engagement eventsA number of engagementevents were conducted, as set out in the annexes of each report or internally at no cost to the Treasury. A total of £400 was incurred for one event for the Balance of Competences report on Economic and Monetary Policy. Witness expensesAcross the whole of the Balance of Competences Review witness expenses amounted to approximately £2,255.00. Publicity of the reportsNo expenses were incurred for publicity. Any of all other associated costsFor the balance of Competences Reports on Financial Services and Free Movement of Capital, a cost of £8,000 was incurred in production of a literature review from an external academic. This was required to supplement the evidence on the free movement of capital and to allow for a separate, more in-depth analysis. The literature review was published alongside the report as evidence.

Inflation

Lord Myners: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to consider setting the inflation target over an extended period, rather than a single year, in order to allow some catch-up for an extended period of under-target outcomes.

Lord Deighton: The Bank of England Act 1998 requires the Treasury to specify the objectives of the Monetary Policy Committee, namely what price stability is taken to consist of and the Government’s economic policy objective at least once every 12 months.   At Budget 2013, the Government reviewed the UK’s flexible inflation targeting monetary policy framework in international and historical context.   Based on the assessment set out in the review, the Government believes that low and stable medium-term inflation is a necessary, though not sufficient, pre-requisite for economic prosperity. As a result, in the remit for the independent Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, the Government has retained a flexible inflation targeting framework and reaffirmed the 2 per cent Consumer Prices Index inflation target, which applies at all times. The Government updated the remit to clarify the trade-offs that are involved in setting monetary policy to meet a forward-looking inflation target.

Public Sector: Pay

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the call by the Prime Minister at the British Chambers of Commerce Conference on 10 February for salaries and wages in the private sector to be increased, whether they will now arrange for the caps on the salaries and wages of public sector employees to be lifted; and if not, why not.

Lord Deighton: The Chancellor announced at Autumn Statement 2011 that for the two years following the public sector pay freeze, public sector pay awards will average at 1 per cent. At Budget 2013 it was announced that awards in 2015-16 will be limited to an average of up to 1 per cent.   The government has made no decisions on pay policy beyond 2015-16. Decisions on future pay policy will be made at the next spending round.   Pay restraint is one of the many difficult choices the government has had to make to help put the UK's public finances back on track. It is helping to protect jobs in the public sector and support the quality of public services.

Banks: China

Lord Myners: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they still consider it appropriate to allow Chinese banks to open branches in the United Kingdom.

Lord Deighton: The decision-making on applications from Chinese banks to establish branches in the United Kingdom is a matter for the independent Prudential Regulation Authority, consistent with its broader policy on the regulation of non-European Economic Area banks.

Department for Energy and Climate Change

Climate Change

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what research is being undertaken by the Met Office and the Natural Environment Research Council on the effects on the global and Arctic climate, including the global temperature rise, caused by the melting of the Arctic permafrost.

Baroness Verma: The Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) is currently funding research into Arctic permafrost through the Arctic Research Programme and the Joint Programming Initiative – Climate (JPI-Climate). The Arctic Research Programme is undertaking research on the release of greenhouse gases from permafrost and how these emissions will influence global warming, and on the interaction between permafrost, greenhouse gases and vegetation in the Arctic:http://arp.arctic.ac.uk.JPI-Climate is a collaboration between 14 European countries. They are researching uncertainties in the permafrost-climate feedback, and biogas production from permafrost:http://www.jpi-climate.eu/news-events/news/ninecollaborativeresearchprojectsawarded. The Met Office is working with the University of Exeter and the Centre of Ecology and Hydrology to improve the representation of permafrost within the Joint UK Land Environment Simulator, the land surface scheme of the UK Earth System Model (UKESM). The UKESM is a collaboration between NERC and the Met Office.

Climate Change

Lord Hunt of Chesterton: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, as a contribution to establishing future targets and implementation plans for the reduction of carbon emissions at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in 2015, what policies are being proposed by the United Kingdom delegations to the United Nations specialised agencies responsible for climate change mitigation, including United Nations Habitat, the United Nations Environmental Programme, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation, the International Atomic Energy Agency, the International Maritime Organisation and the International Civil Aviation Organisation.

Baroness Verma: We recognise the UNFCCC as the only place where a legally binding international agreement could be delivered at the scale necessary to meet the challenge of climate change, given its universal coverage and legitimacy. As such, we are working with countries to intensify domestic preparations for the new deal and want as many as possible to put forward contributions to the UNFCCC by the first quarter of 2015, which set out how they are going to achieve their commitments on post-2020 mitigation. Alongside this we are working closely with UN institutions and relevant international agencies to assess how different international actors can best support an ambitious deal in Paris.

Cabinet Office

European Union

Lord Boswell of Aynho: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total cost of the Review of the Balance of Competences between the United Kingdom and the European Union to the Cabinet Office and its associated agencies, broken down by (1) staff time, (2) printing costs, (3) running of engagement events, (4) witness expenses, (5) publicity of the reports, and (6) any and all other associated costs.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The Balance of Competences Review concluded in December. There is no central record of the overall cost of the review as each individual Department was responsible for allocating its own resources.  This following information relates to the work of the European and Global Issues Secretariat (EGIS) in Cabinet Office, which, with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO), supported the delivery of the entire Review.  (1) A full breakdown of staff time and costs could only be obtained at disproportionate cost, but the staff cost of the Review was borne entirely within existing budgets.  (2) Cabinet Office contributed £14,076.87 towards printing and publication costs.  (3) There were no cost on running of engagement events  (4) Across the whole of the Balance of Competences Review witness expenses amounted to approximately £2,255.00, which were borne by the FCO.  (5) The Cabinet Office did not spend any money on publicity of the reports.  (6) The Cabinet Office had no other associated costs.  Costs incurred by the Civil Contingencies Secretariat and Constitution Group within the Cabinet Office will be covered in the FCO response to Question HL4823.

Electoral Register: Young People

Lord Storey: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that young people whose 18th birthdays fall on or before the voter registration application deadline know that they can register to vote before they turn 18.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: The Government recently announced that organisations that work with people who are underrepresented on the electoral register will share some £2.5 million of funding to ensure they register to vote. This includes UK Youth and British Youth Council who will target young people. In addition, £6.8 million has been shared across every Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) in Great Britain. EROs are best placed to determine the type of activity they deliver through this funding to maximise registration levels in their area according to local circumstances. This could include specific activity aimed at registering attainers or a write out to all households to prompt those missing to register.

Department of Health

Embryos

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 8 January 2013 (WA 24–6), 24 February 2014 (WA 174–5) and 5 February 2015 (HL4367), whether the total number of embryos allowed to perish as stated as 1,717,375 between 1991 and 2011 represents the same set of embryos recorded in the earlier answer as "stored for research" or "discarded", which totalled 1,720,446 or those recorded in that answer as not being "transferred", "stored for patients' use" or "stored for donation", totalling 1,316,979; which is the correct figure for the number of embryos destroyed over that period; and what relevance they consider that the embryo being "the size of the head of a pin" has to the number of embryos destroyed.

Earl Howe: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority has advised that the number of embryos allowed to perish between 1991 and 2011 is 1,717,375, as stated in my written answer of 5 February 2015 (HL4367). In relation to the figures given in my written answer of 8 January 2013 (WA 24-6), the comparator would be the figures recorded as “Embryos reported on the Treatment form as being discarded” and “Embryos reported on the Gamete Movement form as being removed from storage and discarded”.   The total figures differ from the later answer (HL4367) because the latter does not include embryos stored for research. Any further difference in the figures is due to reconciliation work performed on the data since my answer of 8 January 2013.   The descriptive term “head of a pin” was intended to give the noble Lord an indication of the size of the embryo involved, in my written answers of 24 February 2014, HL5165 (WA 174-5), and 5 February 2015, HL4367.

In Vitro Fertilisation

Lord Alton of Liverpool: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their current understanding of the Warnock Committee’s recommendations on the level of respect to be afforded to human embryos; whether they continue to adhere to those original principles; and how they and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority give effect to those principles in their policies.

Earl Howe: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, as amended, which builds on the recommendations made in the July 1984 report of The Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (the “Warnock Committee”), takes account of the special status of the human embryo because of its potential to develop into a human being.   The Government and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) recognise the special status of embryos. This is reflected in the strict regulatory controls that continue to be applied to the use of embryos in treatment and research.   The HFEA has advised that it requires all licensed centres to ‘have proper respect for the special status of the embryo when conducting licensed activities’. This is a principle which informs every part of its Code of Practice, which HFEA licensed centres are expected to adhere to. This can be found on the HFEA’s website at:   http://www.hfea.gov.uk/184.html

In Vitro Fertilisation

Lord McColl of Dulwich: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Earl Howe on 9 February (HL4411), how the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 make provision for the follow-up studies to investigate how mutations vary in each of the different cells of the resulting children; at what age or ages the children would be when their cells would be examined in that way; how many different tissues and of which type would have to be biopsied to obtain the cells of interest; how informed consent would be obtained from the children for that purpose; and at what point such children would be informed of the techniques used in their conception.

Earl Howe: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015, if approved by Parliament, will not come into force until 29 October 2015. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) will consider how best to apply a monitoring framework to clinics awarded a licence to carry out mitochondrial donation treatment, against which it would inspect.   The HFEA will announce its proposals for the regulation and monitoring of mitochondrial donation treatment cycles following the approval of regulations by Parliament.

In Vitro Fertilisation

Lord McColl of Dulwich: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 26 January (HL4063 and HL4228) and by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, Jane Ellison, on 2 February (HC222039), whether the dates on which the members of the Expert Panel convened by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) held its meetings were recorded or otherwise indicated by minutes of their discussion meetings published on the HFEA website; how it was confirmed that correspondence regarding the abstract in Fertility and Sterility in 2003 (Volume 30, supplement 3, p56) was shared with other panel members by forwarding of emails or by distributing printed copies in person at discussion meetings; why the HFEA has been unable to determine the exact date on which the Expert Panel first became aware of this abstract; and whether they can indicate the first month and year for which records are available when the Expert Panel discussed correspondence regarding this abstract.

Earl Howe: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that it has convened an Expert Panel to review the safety and efficacy of methods to avoid mitochondrial disease through assisted conception on three occasions - in 2011, 2013 and 2014 (plus an addendum to the third review in 2014). The minutes of the Panel’s meetings for the 2011 and 2013 reviews are available on the HFEA website at:   http://www.hfea.gov.uk/6372.html The minutes of the 2014 review will be on the website shortly. All of the minutes record the dates the Panel’s meetings took place. As outlined in the report of its third review, carried out in 2014, the Panel met three times for this review between February and June 2014, their main meeting being on 4 April 2014.   As outlined in the Panel’s addendum to the third review (a review of the safety and efficacy of polar body transfer to avoid mitochondrial disease) members met twice, on 26 August and 16 September 2014, to discuss this addendum.   As explained in my answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool on 26 January 2015 (HL4063 and HL4228), a member of the Expert Panel corresponded with one of the authors of the abstract referred to in the noble Lord’s question, and the HFEA has advised that this correspondence was shared with the other Panel members. The correspondence was by email. The Expert Panel corresponded about this abstract in September 2014.

In Vitro Fertilisation

Lord McColl of Dulwich: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answers by Earl Howe on 18 November 2014 (HL2644) and on 26 January 2015 (HL4063 and HL4228), whether they will place in the Library of the House a full copy of the correspondence between either the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) or members of the HFEA's Expert Panel and the Chinese authorities, in which the reasons for banning pronuclear transfer in China following publication of the abstract in Fertility and Sterility in 2003 (Volume 30, supplement 3, p56) were explained in detail.

Earl Howe: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has advised that neither the Authority nor the members of Expert Panel it convened have had any correspondence with the “Chinese authorities” on this matter.   With regard to correspondence between the expert panel, the HFEA and the authors of the Zhang researchers, I refer my noble friend to my previous Written Answer of 26 January on the matter highlighting that the Expert Panel is independent of the HFEA and does not act on its behalf.

In Vitro Fertilisation

Lord McColl of Dulwich: To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the latest research shared on a confidential basis with the Expert Panel convened by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) indicates that the first embryo generated following either spindle-chromosomal complex transfer or pronuclear transfer could be implanted into a woman later this year with the first baby born in 2016, as reported in The Independent on 30 January and by BBC News online on 1 February.

Earl Howe: At this time, any suggestion of a date when the first mitochondrial donation treatment cycle might take place or when the first child resulting from the use of the donation techniques might be born is speculation.   The Draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015, if approved by Parliament, will come into force on 29 October 2015. Clinics wishing to offer mitochondrial donation in treatment after that date, will first need to apply to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for authorisation to do so; this would need to be granted before such treatment could take place.

Musculoskeletal Disorders

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, in the light of the amount of musculoskeletal training in the general practitioner curriculum, whether they will they publish a workforce development strategy for healthcare professionals, including general practitioners and specialist practitioners in musculoskeletal disorders.

Earl Howe: The content and standard of medical training is the responsibility of the General Medical Council (GMC), which is an independent statutory body. It has the general function of promoting high standards of education and co-ordinating all stages of education to ensure that medical students and newly qualified doctors are equipped with the knowledge, skills and attitudes essential for professional practice.   Health Education England (HEE) will work with bodies that set curricula such as the GMC and the Royal College of General Practitioners to seek to ensure general practice training meets the needs of patients.   In addition, HEE has established an independent Primary Care Workforce Commission which is chaired by Professor Martin Roland of the University of Cambridge. The Commission will identify models of primary care that will meet the needs of the future National Health Service including greater emphasis on community, primary and integrated services. It will focus on patient and population need; emerging models of care to respond to the population need; and maximising new skill sets and education and training.

NHS: Finance

Lord Allen of Kensington: To ask Her Majesty’s Government, following the rejection by National Health Service trusts of the financial tariff proposals drawn up by Monitor for 2015–16, whether they intend to refer the matter to the Competition and Markets Authority; and if not what other prescription they have to deal with the issue.

Earl Howe: Under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, the decision on whether to refer the matter to the Competition and Markets Authority is for Monitor to take.   We understand that Monitor is carefully considering the best course of action, alongside NHS England.

Patients: Surveys

Baroness Wheatcroft: To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is the annual cost to the National Health Service of the customer satisfaction surveys conducted by text message; and to what use the results of such surveys are put.

Earl Howe: A range of surveys are conducted to understand the views and experience of those using NHS services. The National Health Survey patient experience survey programme uses a postal methodology and does not currently involve text messaging.   The NHS Friends and Family Test (FFT) is not a traditional customer satisfaction survey, but provides continuous opportunities for near real-time feedback from patients about their experience of care and treatment. Healthcare providers can provide a feedback collection method that suits them. Most use low-cost paper feedback forms and collection boxes but some use text messaging. NHS England does not gather information on the cost of this.   FFT provides a rich source of patient views that has proved valuable in making improvements to local services.